Re: Here we go again.

Quoting cbirds <cbirds(at)earthlink.net>:

> I truly doubt they could enforce not using frames what with all the 
> internet to police......really.
>  

Actually, having missed the beginning of this thread, I have a question. Has the
museumtour.com site discussed changed it's design? Because I don't see any
frames on the museum site. The copy of the letter from SBC that they have posted
on their site says: 

"We recently observed several useful navigation features within the user
interface of your www.museumtour.com website. For example, your site includes
several selectors or tabs that correspond to spcific locations in your site
document. These selectors seem to reside in their own frame or part of the user
interface. And, as such, the selectors are not lost when a different part of the
document is displayed to the user."

Now, the site I'm looking at does not utilize frames. It does, however, appear
to be done in cold fusion, and the links are feeding variable definitions to the
server side scripting. For example, the original link to the site to read about
the SBC issue was:
http://www2.museumtour.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&pageid=430 . Now, is SBC
claiming then to have a patent on cold fusion sites? Or just database driven
sites in general? *G* Or perhaps it's includes, which place the same footers and
headers into each document generated by the database? Navigation buttons? 

Cranky Jen :-)
--

OffLead Productions
www.offlead.com
 

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA